brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:User Rights/Archive
Here is yet another forum started by Ajraddatz, this time aiming at the user rights. Part 1:Rollback 22:49, January 27, 2010 (UTC) #* Wikipedia basicly says you need some Vandal fighting edits. You just file a request on the page, and an admin/bcrat comes along and grants your rights. --Lcawte 15:46, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :::Also, Wikipedia takes away rollback as soon as it is abused, and the user needs to request it again if they want it back. Ajraddatz Talk 15:53, January 28, 2010 (UTC) ::::So on Wikipedia, you just say "please" and they give it to you? Kingcjc 16:42, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :You say "please", they look at your 200+ contribs and make sure that you don't have a history of vandalism, and then they give it to you. Rollback is not some amazing god-power, it just makes undoing edits take a few seconds less. Ajraddatz Talk 16:44, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :But by that principle, we might as well give rollback to ever single person. I think rollback should be a privelege for people, it makes them feel like they have worked hard and done good for the wiki 16:48, January 28, 2010 (UTC) ::Stupid firefox, that was me.... 16:50, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :::FFS Kingcjc 16:52, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :No, it is given to users who are trusted with it. Also, please, no user right is a reward. That is what BOTM is for, as well as barnstars when people finally agree on the design :P. Ajraddatz Talk 16:51, January 28, 2010 (UTC) #That sounds good.--[[User:Agent Chase|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Chase|'Chase: ']] 16:54, January 28, 2010 (UTC) ::Ok, Ajraddatz, Please stop writing in bold! Now, I think that this should not follow Wikipedia's rollback rules or whatever. Just do what we do now. -Nerfblasterpro: [[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'I PRESS SMASH BUTTON!']] 11:19, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :::Well, now that you have patroller, there is a right for hard-working users, but really...what defines a rollback? }} Part 2:Bureaucrats 22:03, January 27, 2010 (UTC) * I'm neutral on this one. I'm not saying I want all the user rights power to my self (*evil laugh*), but it's not that hard to tick a box on the rare occasion that user rights requests are completed. And I agree with Lcawte that we should probably have some guidelines here, such as how long the requests should go for, and there is an implied "admin consensus" on these, but we've never established how many admins should be needed for it to be approved. 22:49, January 27, 2010 (UTC) # Dont think we need anymore than one really. Nighthawk is on daily and we dont exactly need to give people accesses all day long Kingcjc 16:44, January 28, 2010 (UTC) #That's fine.--[[User:Agent Chase|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Chase|'Chase: ']] 16:54, January 28, 2010 (UTC) #Make NBP B'Crat! *@BobaFett2: No (No offense NBP) --Lcawte 12:45, February 19, 2010 (UTC) **Haha, none taken. -Nerfblasterpro: [[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'I PRESS SMASH BUTTON!']] 19:21, March 4, 2010 (UTC) }} Part 3:Autopatroller 22:49, January 27, 2010 (UTC) *This right would be something that would be given, and taken away, at a mere thought. Unlike admin, this right is only designed to remain so long as the user is trusted with it. Honestly, any more than one mistake should have this right removed. I have now requested that it be made. Also, if you look in the new pages, these things aren't checked much anyways, as almost none of them are marked as patrolled. Perhaps we could also have a Patrollers group? Ajraddatz Talk 15:49, January 28, 2010 (UTC)\ *Hmm.. Uberfuzzy doesn't want to make it. Would anyone object if these people could also suppress redirects when moving pages, and move files? Ajraddatz Talk 19:59, January 28, 2010 (UTC) ** Well I wouldnt, 2 tools I would love to have! --Lcawte 20:03, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :::Hehe, well, I'll rename the group to patrollers, and add the above and a few other pointless things. Ajraddatz Talk 20:13, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :The right is made, see Brickipedia:Requests for patroller. Now this is a right that should be assigned for good work on the wiki, and I would be open to moving it to the user rights requests page. Ajraddatz Talk 23:27, January 28, 2010 (UTC) }} Other Suggestions BAG Members Submitted by: 22:08, January 27, 2010 (UTC) I'm suggesting that Bot Approval Group Members get rights to grant Bot status to people, and that only. Staff or Bcrat should be allowed to hand out this right, probally staff. BAG members should also be able to rollback Bot edits (adapted rollback). Of course this is dependant on staff and community. Comments * I'm ok to see BAG members hand out Bot status to bots. But I'm not exactly sure what Bot rollback entails, and how would it be dependent of staff and community? Do you mean another voting page? 22:49, January 27, 2010 (UTC) ** Ah, I was tired when I wrote that, anyway: 1) Bot rollback - Rollback powers, but can only be used on bot edits... in more simple words, cant rollback normal users edits, but can rollback ones made by users marked as a bot. 2) Staff - If its technically possible, Community - if the community wants this right added. Voting page, could be done here, or just cleared by admins. -- 15:41, January 28, 2010 (UTC) *** First, Staff currently want to keep the bot-giving-out to themselves. I am not sure why :/. Second, bot rollback would require a change in the mediawiki base code, which Staff wouldn't do. Great ideas though; and I would support if someone could convince Staff that it would be OK. Ajraddatz Talk 15:51, January 28, 2010 (UTC) **** Well, VSTF members can bot flag people xD The rollback was just an additional idea. -Lcawte 15:58, January 28, 2010 (UTC) **A couple notes: **#Bot rollback is simply a rollback flagged as a botted edit. Any administrator can already do this by adding ?bot=1 to the contributions (e.g. here). The rollback edit and any edits being rolled back will be hidden from recentchanges. This is for hiding offensive or spammy things not needing seen in recentchanges. Look for "markbotedits" in . **#Giving bureaucrats or even administrators the ability to add or remove bot from people is a very and extremely simple wikifactory change. It just needs community consensus. I know of a few wikis that do this so what you're saying isn't true. **#The only reason VSTF can add and remove bot is so that we can flag our own accounts for cleanup purposes. That's it. We are not allowed to grant it to others. **--Charitwo (talk) 16:19, January 28, 2010 (UTC) ::::I asked Wikia about it a while back, and I think it was Sannse that said "no". In that case, if there are no more opposed votes, then I will contact and request this right to be made, which will be able to add/remove bot as well as mark rollbacked edits as a bot. Anything else that I should throw in? It seems good to me. Ajraddatz Talk 16:23, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :::::You should also be clear on what you're asking. This page should specifcy which groups you're wanting to be able to add and remove bot. And again, administrators can already mark rollbacked edits as a bot, it has nothing to do with flagging an account as a bot, nor do you need to be flagged as a bot to do it. Any administrator can already do this. Are you suggesting the rollback group be able to do this? --Charitwo (talk) 16:26, January 28, 2010 (UTC) ::::::No, in fact this wasn't even my idea. People are wanting a new user group, BAG (Bot approval group), which contains elected members of the community and can add/remove bot and mark their own rollbacked edits as "bot". Since both current members also have the rollback right, this works well. Ajraddatz Talk 16:32, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I can see why the idea was turned down then. A new group is not necessary. Just add give that right to bureaucrats or admins and once the "BAG" approves a bot, an admin/crat can flip the switch. --Charitwo (talk) 16:35, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :That would work, however a while ago I requested that add/rmv bot was added to bureaucrat and the response was "For now you can add bot by contacting Wikia". Ajraddatz Talk 16:36, January 28, 2010 (UTC) {undent} The origanal idea was to add rollback to the new usergroup that only works on Bot's edits. We could just change it to BAG members being able to give the bot flag. Edit: Ajraddatz, what I was thinking of its BAG members being able to rollback edits made by bots, and bots only. The RC filters bot edits, and they are displayed with b'' --Lcawte 16:37, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :You can't have just bot rollback, you can have 'rollback' by itself, but 'markbotedits' doesn't give you the ability to only bot rollback, it ''enhances the existing rollback right. --Charitwo (talk) 16:39, January 28, 2010 (UTC) {undent} Ok, so is anyone ok with BAG Members being able to have block and rollback features, with the understanding it should only be used on Bots.. --Lcawte 07:16, March 12, 2010 (UTC) :Wikia won't make a user group like that, which ends up being the problem. What I can do is request that the ability to add/remove bot be added to administrator, or request bureaucrat :P Ajraddatz Talk 14:53, March 12, 2010 (UTC) ::As Charitwo has already stated, a few times, is that staff do that.. and I doubt it was cause too many problems, I could try it on my MW installs if I wanted to.. --Lcawte 15:25, March 12, 2010 (UTC) :::I oppose this. 2 bots is enough for now. [[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'360']] 12:03, March 15, 2010 (UTC) I strongly oppose: #People like Verrell123 who don't really know what a bot it ask wikia to make their extra "bot" account into a bot, but they don't know how to program one or what they even are. #This could be misused and give bot status to a user as an act of cruelty. Then you would have to get wikia to un-bot them. #It's not really necessary unless the wiki gets at least 10 active high-class programmers like Ajraddatz, VegaDark and Lcawte. ::Sorry, but I dont think your understanding this. BAG is a group of highly experainced and trusted users, aka me and Ajr, who both have a lot of admin experaince on other wikis. BAG is invite only, and the group can be added and removed by an Bcrat. There is a strict policy/instruction sheet for BAG members to be followed to do with the process of bot flagging. And bot flags are serious, only to be used to hide Bot edits from an account. Oh, GG, Ajr says no to that comment. You can never have too many bots, as long as they have a valid purpose. And you dont need to be a high class programmer to have a bot, just some tech knowledge, reading skills and common sense. --Lcawte 19:01, March 15, 2010 (UTC) :::You dont even need much tech knowledge to AWB.. just some knowledge of wiki, and how to use a mouse keyboard and read.. plus what certain aspects of a wiki.. -Lcawte 19:05, March 15, 2010 (UTC) OK I didn't know that. But still, there really is no need since there aren't lots of users clamoring to get bots. Maybe if you had lots of users who want and know how to make a bot, but really, if you want a bot, why not just ask wikia? :Wikia cant give out bots, they run their own bots, for bot status. Being able to give bot status' may attract more of Wikia's more experainced Bot programmers, also a user wanting to say, run a bot like task on their user account, but dont want to have the hassel of creating a spare bot account for a one time task could have their account marked as a bot for that task to stop RC flood. Wikia will however, give out Bot status on request from the op or bcrat only when a community consenus is reached, being able to give our own bot flags means that for the tasks that dont need community / admin approval, BAG can sort out themselves. --Lcawte 19:30, March 15, 2010 (UTC) Ohhhhhhhhhhh. Then I vote yes. Closing admin votes 22:49, January 27, 2010 (UTC) I'm suggesting closing nominations for administrator rights until a time where the wiki has grown enough for us to need new admins. At the moment, I think the admin team seems to be covering everything pretty well, and with NBP now on the team, we'll have six admins to cover all the activity. I know closing and opening of admin votes has been adopted on several wikis, (eg Harry Potter Wiki). I guess an excess of admins wouldn't be a bad thing, but I just don't know if we really need any more at present. Just an idea, can't say I fully 100% support it, but I just thought I should bring it up. Comments *I am in agreement here, we don't need any more admins at the moment. There is usually always one admin edit in the RC, and that means that the admin/user ratio is good enough. Ajraddatz Talk 15:49, January 28, 2010 (UTC) * What he said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Kingcjc 16:37, January 28, 2010 (UTC) *I agree. 6 is enough. Maybe when we reach 8000 articles a new admin vote will come up. [[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'360']] 12:01, February 9, 2010 (UTC) *YES! I'm a power-loving admin who wants all power to himself! :P But yeah, I agree. The wiki grows everyday, but for now we have alot of admins (Still could use maybe 1 more beauracrat, but that is just how I feel). And still plenty for rollback. -Nerfblasterpro: [[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'I PRESS SMASH BUTTON!']] 23:48, February 13, 2010 (UTC) *Hmm I kind of agree....but it doesn't hurt...just be extra strict with the voting maybe? *I think we should close admin votes. We already have 6 admins, and , there are only around 150 people (I don't think including IPs) that have made edits in the last month, it doesnt seem like enough people editing to need another admin 13:37, February 20, 2010 (UTC) * I second all of this. -- 19:21, February 26, 2010 (UTC) }} Start "Temporary Adminship" Submitted by: 02:15, February 27, 2010 (UTC) I am suggesting that this wiki has "temporary admins." These "Admins" will only be Admins when summer comes along. This is only for summer because people are released from school, and there will be more vandels around. This way, in case our 6 admins at the moment are not here editing, and there will be someone to delete a spam page or undo a bad fath edit. Then, if it gets to bad, they can block the user easly. At the end of August, they will turned back into a normal editor. Comments *I like the idea. The problem is who to pick. It should probably be the more active and trusted persons. * That's what I mean. 03:00, February 27, 2010 (UTC) * I completly oppose this idea. There are alot people on IRC, and we have a CVN feed that is watched, Admins are only needed to block people, we have plenty of rollbacks, for starters I watch the RC over 12 hours a day when I'm home all day.. If we have serious vandals and no one is around to stop them immediatly, we have VSTF members that can do it. Also long as you know the contacts, your fine. --Lcawte 09:17, February 27, 2010 (UTC) * Per Lcawte. But, if admin activity does die down, there would be no reason not to re-open permanent admin nominations 10:33, February 27, 2010 (UTC) :*@Nighthawk Leader: Your still not getting this. 13:15, February 27, 2010 (UTC) ::* I think he gets it perfectly well... :::*No, he doesn't. I'm not it permanent. It's called "temporary adminship." It is only for summer when more vandel will be here. >:| 13:46, February 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::* Per Lcawte, aka he's using my point as well... --Lcawte 13:52, February 27, 2010 (UTC) Look, MF3...one....if you really want to be admin make a test wiki. 2: I don't think that one vandalism will cause the admins to block an IP address, you can still undo it and give them a warning. 3: Per below (See the below nom) 4: Brickipedia is doing fine-If you want to become an admin here some day, then you should wait until admin noms are reopened. *I second the above oppose comments, and wish that I could be more active here :S Ajraddatz Talk 14:53, February 27, 2010 (UTC) :::If anything have an overall amount of admins that fits all criterias needed on the team. Also start to remove inactive users rights. [[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'360']] 19:45, March 23, 2010 (UTC) ::::Yea, who is Bahnpirat and is he really a good user? 19:49, March 23, 2010 (UTC) I oppose the idea 100%. We don't need more admins (even if they are temporary). Plus, summer vacation is different for every school everywhere, especially when hemispheres come into play. When it's summer in the northern hemisphere, it's winter in the southern. Not a good idea. [[User:Construction Worker|'Construction']][[special:contributions/Construction Worker|''' Worker ]][[User talk:Construction Worker|'''Do you need help?]] 20:46, April 8, 2010 (UTC) Trial Adminship/Rollbackship Submitted by: 03:02, February 27, 2010 (UTC) I think that people should have a chance to try Rollback or Admin for a while, to see what it is like. They would receive adminship or rollback for, say, a week, or as long as they use it properly. Maybe during this time their edits would be watched more closely, and if they do something wrong they would lose the right. Comments *Not an awful Idea, but there are lots of flaws: #Someone may go on a deletion/block spree #They may vandalize pages because they think that they are immune #Adminship isn't just fun and games *If you really want to learn how adminship works, you can ask brickipedia to make a sub-wiki for admin training? :That was why I said that they would have the right revoked as soon as they did something wrong. 04:04, February 27, 2010 (UTC) * Per above.. ever heard of a test wiki? --Lcawte 09:18, February 27, 2010 (UTC) * Per above.. Plus when they do something wrong still means we would have bad blocks/deletions and that still raises problems. We can restore them and unban the editor, but then if you was randomly blocked, would you really want to continue to edit when you dont know if they will block again? (DUM DUM DUM) Kingcjc 09:44, February 27, 2010 (UTC) * Sorry, I'm deadset against this one. Per above, and there's no telling what damage could be done if handing out admin powers without any real consideration was carried out- there's page deletion/protection, blocking, and changes to mediawiki files to consider. And as BobaFett2 said, it's not fun and games, and it isn't really that interesting hitting a delete button every so often and occasionally hitting "block" 10:33, February 27, 2010 (UTC) *Per Nighthawk above. Ajraddatz Talk 14:55, February 27, 2010 (UTC) *Okay... I was really thinking about rollback when I made this. Would anyone be opposed to rollback being available for trial if the person already has the needed criteria? (500 edits, 14 days). 19:16, February 27, 2010 (UTC) *Why not just have them apply for rollback instead of having them get a temporary rollbackship? * Yes, I would oppose, basicly per BobaFett2 --Lcawte 16:20, March 1, 2010 (UTC) *Honestly, where do ppl come up with this stuff? Bad idea (per Boba). If you want adminship, make your own wiki. We shouldn't have power-hungry users to begin with. [[User:Construction Worker|'Construction']][[special:contributions/Construction Worker|''' Worker ]][[User talk:Construction Worker|'''Do you need help?]] 20:49, April 8, 2010 (UTC) :Look, I don't really want adminship. I just wanted to have a look at rollback. 21:52, April 8, 2010 (UTC) RevisionDelete Well, here is my first proposal. I would like to enable (see here) on Brickipedia. It is a convenience thing, and allows us to hide certain material (E.G. swears in edit summaries or log entries). It does create a semi-annoying interface, so I'm wondering whether it would be good to enable it for sysop, or create a new user group. If all the admins are fine with using it, then it can be enabled for the sysop group. If there are any sysops that oppose it, then please say so below and we will create a new user group for it. Ajraddatz Talk 23:14, April 20, 2010 (UTC) Discussion *'Support enabling for sysop' - As nominator. Ajraddatz Talk 23:14, April 20, 2010 (UTC) *'Major Support' Like the idea. 23:20, April 20, 2010 (UTC) *'Support enabling for sysop' 23:27, April 20, 2010 (UTC) *'Support enabling for sysop' I think it would work better with admins in particular. [[User:Construction Worker|'Construction']][[special:contributions/Construction Worker|''' Worker ]][[User talk:Construction Worker|'''Do you need help?]] 10:28, April 21, 2010 (UTC) *'Support I guess' -Nerfblasterpro: [[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'I PRESS SMASH BUTTON!']] 14:50, April 21, 2010 (UTC) *I can't see the use, but it seems to be useful, so Support. 15:01, April 21, 2010 (UTC) * Support Kingcjc 15:18, April 21, 2010 (UTC) :Not going to happen. --Uberfuzzy 06:41, April 22, 2010 (UTC) :: Ok, thanks very much for letting us know before we got into further discussion/votes though :) 08:01, April 22, 2010 (UTC) ::: Actually, this should be fine enabled on this wiki; we aren't creating a new user group, just enabling for sysops. I honestly don't see the issue, since I have successfully requested it on another wiki. Are you thinking of ? Ajraddatz Talk 03:20, April 25, 2010 (UTC) :::: I have seen this before, and there is a group nevrr created here but on other wikis called Oversighters. 03:53, April 25, 2010 (UTC) :::: I'm pretty sure Uberfuzzy knows exactly which one you're talking about. :::::Oversight is , RevisionDelete is . The first is a hack, deprecated, and has never been granted locally on Wikia. The second is what replaced the first as a more stable, albeit messy, feature. Take care not to confuse the two, and again...Uber wasn't confusing them or this request. --Charitwo (talk) 03:58, April 25, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I realize this; I also know the difference between the two. I am requesting Special:RevisionDelete, which has been enabled upon request on other wikis. If it he isn't confused, then why won't it be enabled? Ajraddatz Talk 04:46, April 25, 2010 (UTC) Support for Sysop: I also think that this would make sense for rollbacks and patroller's whose jobs are to find these sorts of bad edits, but whatever works. 01:36, July 29, 2010 (UTC) I have requested that the above extension be enabled for sysops, and it has been! Please comment, if you feel the need. Ajraddatz Talk 23:14, April 20, 2010 (UTC) Discussion *This can be really handy for bad vandalism sprees. Ajraddatz Talk 23:14, April 20, 2010 (UTC) **'Oppose' If we make it so that the entire site can be edited by registered users only, we could be litterally deserted. -Nerfblasterpro: [[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'I PRESS SMASH BUTTON!']] 14:50, April 21, 2010 (UTC) :You don't understand, see below. Ajraddatz Talk 22:42, April 25, 2010 (UTC) **'Weak Oppose' I thought of this too and I think we should protect more and more pages in a longer time rather than protecting everything at once. In future, we could protect the FA's, then the GA's. But not protect everything at once, no. 15:01, April 21, 2010 (UTC) :You don't understand, see below. Ajraddatz Talk 22:42, April 25, 2010 (UTC) *'Oppose' due to mostly pointless.. If we have a vandal spree, what use is it going to be.. if theres admin's around, they can block them, if there isnt, then we go to VSTF? --Lcawte 15:07, April 21, 2010 (UTC) *'Oppose' - per above Kingcjc 15:19, April 21, 2010 (UTC) :You don't understand, see below. Ajraddatz Talk 22:42, April 25, 2010 (UTC) ::You guys don't understand what this is... and also, Lcawte: VSTF do not exist to replace local admins. If there is ever something that a local admin could do, then the VSTF will not act. Please learn this; you put waaay too much emphasis on the VSTF. Ajraddatz Talk 21:10, April 21, 2010 (UTC) :::Actually, if no admins are around here (or any wiki), we will rollback and/or delete spam/vandal pages and if absolutely necessary block for a short amount of time to keep the noise level down until a local admin can review the situation and make a more discretionary block. But as for this wiki, it is pretty active with a handful of active admins (4 active in the last 24hrs), so that wouldn't happen here. Also, this shouldn't have been requested to be enabled for admins before gaining community consensus (which doesn't seem to exist)...and I can understand why. --Charitwo (talk) 21:23, April 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::That is what I meant; if there aren't any admins around then they can't really do something about it. Thanks for clarifying. Ajraddatz Talk 21:29, April 21, 2010 (UTC) * Neutral. I kind of can see what Lcawte is saying- if there are admins around, they can block the offending users instead of protecting the whole site, and if there are no admins around, then no action against the users can be taken anyway. But, since it's already here, I don't see any harm in having it here. I don't think it's likely an admin's going to protect the site without a good reason to 04:22, April 22, 2010 (UTC) * Support I agree with the request. This would come in handy for me, Glad, and everyone else who is on we others aren't. I mean, when I won my first spam war, I was all alone until I contacted Ajr. This will be a usefull thing for others to have. Oppose This is pointless if it is only for using for bots, as I think. 03:45, April 25, 2010 (UTC) *'Comment' - Just so you know, this thing would only be activated in the following circumstances: #First, if there was a bot switching IPs and creating many bad usernamed accounts. #If there was a vandal bot switching IPs; easier to protect all pages for a few minutes then run around cleaning/blocking. #If multiple sockpuppets were uploading bad pictures. As you can see, this isn't just some "Oh, a single vandal. Time to protect Brickipedia" sort of thing. Ajraddatz Talk 23:34, April 24, 2010 (UTC) *Ban ips from making pages and we wont need this. [[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'360']] 23:35, April 24, 2010 (UTC) :No, wrong. Ban IPs from making pages and we doom ourselves to inactivity. We are not starting this again. Ajraddatz Talk 03:03, April 25, 2010 (UTC) : Per Ajr. Let's stay on topic here. Just clarifying- this right is admin only isn't it? A couple comments above seem to suggest otherwise. 03:09, April 25, 2010 (UTC) ::Yes, it is enabled for sysops. This is only to be used in extreme cases of vandalism; for example, I have twice "fought" bots that switched IPs whenever they were blocked, and re-vandalized a page as soon as you reverted it. It is cases like that that you would protect the site, until you could get a range block going. Ajraddatz Talk 03:11, April 25, 2010 (UTC) :::Also, to opposers. It is better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Bear that in mind. Ajraddatz Talk 04:47, April 25, 2010 (UTC) #'Neutral:' I'm not so sure. I mean, I can see protecting pages about future sets and future years, as well as the GA's and FA's, but I doubt it's really gonna be needed. There is always someone one, whether it be an admin or a user with rollback. [[User:Construction Worker|'Construction']][[special:contributions/Construction Worker|''' Worker ]][[User talk:Construction Worker|'''Do you need help?]] 22:27, April 25, 2010 (UTC) ::There are some rare cases when this will be used; and per above, it is better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Ajraddatz Talk 22:42, April 25, 2010 (UTC) '''Support- '''I agree with Ajraddatz 19:18, April 26, 2010 (UTC)